JingerBen

Don's website is so cluttered I couldn't find anything like this form.

I don't mind providing personal information if there is a rationalisation for providing it.

I don't believe there is compelling evidence that reporting every 90 days provides data useful in preventing crime or bettering the experience of the resident foreigner.

If knowing what bank I use or what grocery store I frequent had some reasonable merit for the authorities to know about, then I would feel okay about relinquishing this information. But I see no point to know this other than simply being intrusive and nosey.

Besides, much of the information they want us to provide we have already given them innumerable times. How many copies of Trujillo's passport does immigration have? Probably over 20 copies, I'd guess.

Thais don't care about inconveniencing foreigners nor do they take into consideration what consequences their actions might have. Someone decided up the food chain to ask for more information -- maybe simply to impress his boss as to how "on the ball" he is with overseeing foreigners -- without any regard or real interest about what the information would be used for or even how it would be stored. The boss says push the pencil, we push the pencil. It's stupid, redundant and practically useless? Push that pencil....

Exactly.

In the 30+ years I've been here I've given them enough photos to fill a large album.

That is, unless they've thrown some away... perish the thought.

Well, if Bibi could deliver a two state solution that would be one HUMDINGER of a legacy! Not saying he can though. Not sure anyone can.

A two-state solution is not going to become a reality as long as Israelis occupy Palestinian land outside their 1967 borders.

The radical Zionist objective of ​Eretz Israel is what is behind the illegal settlements and land grabs.

What objectively is the reason behind 'right to exist?'

The Palestinians and the Jews were both offered their own countries by UN. The Jews accepted. The Palestinians refused. The Israelis have built a thriving, successful country over the last 70 years and have made lot of technological advances that helped mankind. Of course, they have the right to exist.

Indeed there has never in all of history been a Palestinian state and there may never be one either, But I think it would be better if that does happen, as long as Israel continues to exist as well.

Oh, you're too much! If Palestine never existed, why is it written on those ancient maps?

Even under British occupation it was Palestine.

Yes indeed.

Everything from ancient maps to Ariel Sharon's birth certificate.

References to ​Palestine ​are ubiquitous since the Romans created the province of ​Syria Palaestina ​in 135 AD.

This comes on the back of Netanyahu's recent trip to Africa and rapidly improving relations with the GCC and Saudi Arabia. I suspect there is an element of Israel preferring to deal with her Arab neighbors than the biased EU or clueless Obama administration. If the west keeps out of this I think peace is achievable within a decade.

Edit; it is indeed very revealing that our usual Israel demonizers and supposed 'Palestinian rights' supporters are in marked absence when the topic is talks to resolve the conflict. If I didn't know better I'd suspect the very thought makes their blood run cold.

We had some before but you're right that potentially positive steps toward peace are not part of the Israel demonization agenda. Unless of course it's disingenuous demands that Israel give up a lot for nothing. That agenda is clearly about cheer leading for the end of Israel and spreading poisonous lies about fictional genocide of Palestinian Arabs. That said the odds are never great of any significant peace progress soon. But hope and efforts are always welcome to people of good will that realize both sides will need to compromise.

Expecting Israel to live within its internationally recognized 1967 borders is not ​"...cheerleading for the end of Israel..

​Quite the opposite, it is the only way to avoid a one-state solution where Israelis are a despised minority living under the constant threat of violent reprisals.

What i am reading is an indignant sense of entitlement, an inability to accept that you are not in kansas anymore, a refusal to make cultural compromises and an unwillingness to accept that you need to satisfy a bureaucratic process to be able to stay here.

im amused that you say you and the majority of foreigners are here because it is cheap then have the audacity to expect everything to be the same.

you must often be disappointed in restaurants.

as for thais being proud of their country, good for them, it is better than apathy or indifference.

Good points... from the first to the last.

The OP sounds like someone who hasn't lived long-term in too many other countries.

Irrespective of any other discussion, the headline seems to have left out the word "illegal" in front of "settlements". That in itself speaks volumes.

Perhaps because the legality of those "settlements" is a grey area, as under Israeli law they are not illegal, and the "state of Palestine" does not exist now and has never existed in all of history.

No, stating those facts does NOT mean that I'm personally in support of expanded Jewish "settlements" in the west bank. I agree that they are not helpful towards any potential peace process, just as Palestinian terrorism is not helpful towards that either.

This is a long standing, very COMPLEX conflict, and assigning all the blame to one side or the other is a denial of reality.

The legality of Israeli settlements only becomes a ​"grey area" ​to those lost in the fog of Zionist propaganda.

Not one country in the world publicly supports the building of illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land.

Actually to be serious for a moment, I gave you a caricature of the Israeli far right position and that was the one esteemed members already portrayed as Israel's official position. The so called Quartet released a more balanced document on the conflict recently. It called on the Israelis to curtail settlement construction but it also called on the Palestinians to stop violence and incitement. It also failed to mention the 67 borders, which have sailed away a long time ago. Abbas of course spat his dummy out big time as any responsibility or action points for himself are unthinkable. I applaud the more balanced document, which is the next best thing to telling the two sides to sort it out bilaterally whilst exiting stage left.

http://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Abbas-calls-on-UN-Security-Council-to-reject-Quartet-report-459696

The Quartet produced a watered down report only because Netanyahu nobbled the committee...don't know what he promised them in return.

Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu 'persuaded world powers to water down illegal settlements report'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-diplomats-illegal-settlements-netanyahu-quartet-report-palestine-west-bank-revealed-world-a7120976.html

And of course you did your own bit of watering down by deliberately misquoting even the Jerusalem Post which wrote

"Late last week the Middle East Quartet called on Israel to cease settlement construction"

...which you changed to "curtail"

The New York Times does a better job of quoting the report than you.

"Israel should cease its policy of building settlements in the occupied West Bank, stop setting aside land for “exclusive Israeli use” and end the practice of denying Palestinians permission to build homes, according to a long-awaited report released Friday and endorsed by the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/world/middleeast/israel-palestinians-quartet-report.html?_r=0

The word whitewash springs to mind.

Since when have world powers listened to Netanyahu? Well actually you may just be onto something, BDS is failing miserably, it's bank accounts shut down and counter boycotts set up. The UNHRC also met recently for the only reason they ever convene, namely to condemn Israel. This time things were different, every single Western democracy walked out prior to the motions concerning Israel.

I'm afraid the game of provoking Israeli retaliation then going whining to the international community is rapidly coming to an end. Israel is rapidly building relationships with the Arab world so the only allies left for the Palestinian terrorists are Iran and their army of rabid keyboard warriors.

P.s I paraphrased, never quoted or made it appear that I had. Nice try no cigar.

Misinformation from the first word to the last.

The international condemnation of Israel is gaining momentum - not losing it.

The illegal settlement building on Palestinian territory is what is provoking it.

Actually to be serious for a moment, I gave you a caricature of the Israeli far right position and that was the one esteemed members already portrayed as Israel's official position. The so called Quartet released a more balanced document on the conflict recently. It called on the Israelis to curtail settlement construction but it also called on the Palestinians to stop violence and incitement. It also failed to mention the 67 borders, which have sailed away a long time ago. Abbas of course spat his dummy out big time as any responsibility or action points for himself are unthinkable. I applaud the more balanced document, which is the next best thing to telling the two sides to sort it out bilaterally whilst exiting stage left.

http://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Abbas-calls-on-UN-Security-Council-to-reject-Quartet-report-459696

The Quartet produced a watered down report only because Netanyahu nobbled the committee...don't know what he promised them in return.

Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu 'persuaded world powers to water down illegal settlements report'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-diplomats-illegal-settlements-netanyahu-quartet-report-palestine-west-bank-revealed-world-a7120976.html

And of course you did your own bit of watering down by deliberately misquoting even the Jerusalem Post which wrote

"Late last week the Middle East Quartet called on Israel to cease settlement construction"

...which you changed to "curtail"

The New York Times does a better job of quoting the report than you.

"Israel should cease its policy of building settlements in the occupied West Bank, stop setting aside land for “exclusive Israeli use” and end the practice of denying Palestinians permission to build homes, according to a long-awaited report released Friday and endorsed by the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/world/middleeast/israel-palestinians-quartet-report.html?_r=0

The word whitewash springs to mind.

Thanks for the clarification.

It's like a fresh breeze that disperses the fog of propaganda.

They seem to be good at catching criminals from overseas but what about the Mr / Mrs Big that are here in Thailand? Something does not add up here

Hang on, have they caught him or just named him?

From the information released so far, it sounds like the Brits have just named him.

Now it's up to the Thai cops to catch him - that is, if he's still here and didn't do a quick runner.

Actually to be serious for a moment, I gave you a caricature of the Israeli far right position and that was the one esteemed members already portrayed as Israel's official position. The so called Quartet released a more balanced document on the conflict recently. It called on the Israelis to curtail settlement construction but it also called on the Palestinians to stop violence and incitement. It also failed to mention the 67 borders, which have sailed away a long time ago. Abbas of course spat his dummy out big time as any responsibility or action points for himself are unthinkable. I applaud the more balanced document, which is the next best thing to telling the two sides to sort it out bilaterally whilst exiting stage left.

http://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Abbas-calls-on-UN-Security-Council-to-reject-Quartet-report-459696

Israel's 1967 borders haven't "...sailed away a long time ago." That's just wishful thinking on your part.

​They are the boundaries that are recognized by the UN and the international community.

Everyone in fact except the radical Zionist leadership of Israel.

Those borders define the state. Anything beyond them is Palestine, and if Israelis want to survive in a Jewish majority state they had better live within those borders or continue to be the target of bloody resistance in occupied territory.

For non-Americans, it isn't within the jurisdiction of any law enforcement agency including the FBI to decide whether to prosecute. They engage in police work, gathering evidence. They give it to a prosecutor who decides whether there is sufficient evidence and whether to prosecute. In some circumstances the evidence has to go to a grand jury of ordinary citizens who vote on whether to prosecute.

This whole thing is most unusual and entirely perplexing. Law enforcement - the police called the FBI decided not to prosecute when that decision actually rests with the Attorney General - Lynch.

Some very unusual things happened in the past week, much of which would be at the least a violation of ethics.

1. Attorney General Lynch who has the say about prosecuting met with her former boss and worse, a potential witness in the case on a private airplane all of which was supposed to be private. That of course was Bill Clinton.

2. Almost the next day the FBI said it was meeting with Hillary about the case.

3. The FBI then held a press conference and did what it has no authority to do - said Clinton wouldn't be prosecuted.

4. At the same time that the head of the FBI was making this press conference statement, his boss, Obama, was boarding Air Force One to go campaign with Hillary. Why would Obama do that unless he knew what the head of the FBI would say on that very day?

The US has 3 branches of government. Congress, the courts (the Judicial Branch) and The Executive branch which answers to the president. That includes the Department of Justice of which the FBI is part. The FBI works directly for Obama. So does the Attorney General - Lynch.

Now the Legislative Branch - Congress has called for immediate hearings about this which is their job. It's about checks and balances if people are honorable.

I haven't talked to a single person today from any party who isn't flabbergasted that the head of the FBI stepped outside his job description and said Clinton wouldn't be prosecuted when that isn't his call to make. That call belongs to Lynch who had just met privately with Bill Clinton at an airport.

Each can draw his own conclusions for reasons behind all of this but to say the least it's far outside of normal protocol. That's putting it nicely.

Cheers.

Excellent summing-up of the situation to date.

In the event of a Clinton win in November it will be interesting to see if Lynch keeps her job as Attorney General.

According to Thai law, truth or falsehood is not the issue - it is the ​intent to defame.

The Clintons are radioactive...

Anyone who gets too close to them risks contamination.

Lynch made a stupid mistake.

Par for the course.

This really turn things on his head. Boonchai Bencharongkul is highly critical of Thaksin policies and now in the same camp as Thaksin? Or the myth about the wat owe its allegiance to Thaksin is busted? So the Wat is not really Red. Lots of red faces ihere who keep harping on the wat pivot to Thaksin and the Red theory.

Interesting point... and relevant.

To what extent - if any - is Wat Dhammakaya a front for the Reds?

Thaksin has been silent on the issue, unless I've missed something.

Is he the ​eminence grise ​in this showdown, or is he really uninvolved?

No, it's never dull in Thailand, that's one of its charms.

Thaksin tried to infiltrate this fake Buddhist sect. The rich middle class followers of the sect refused.

Thanks for the response.

I'll assume your sources are credible and take your word for it.

The Shinawatras' no doubt have considerable support among lay members of this sect, but if the family isn't involved pulling strings directly then it's probably not a political force to be reckoned with. At least not as things stand now.

But who knows what will go down in the near future?

The Dragonhead isn't going to accept the ​status quo ​indefinitely.

I wonder if he possibly thought he could stop the car, in an effort to prevent it from crashing into the wall, only realizing too late just how much momentum a ton+ of metal possesses. I wonder because I attempted the same thing, but was able to move out of the way just in time.

I too had a similar experience years ago when I parked my car and forgot to put it in gear or set the emergency brake.

It started rolling towards a small back porch on our house and I blocked it with my body.

Successfully, I might add. It was just a Volkswagen Beetle so I lived to tell the tale.

Sorry you don't see the difference between purposefully trying to eradicate a whole group of the population and trying to win a war, by all means necessary.

I do see the difference as a legal matter, but as a practical concern, mass-murder of non-combatants can't be justified by any argument.

Justification for the means used by the allies during the war would be for a different discussion, there have been quite a few about that already.

But here we were talking about differences/comparisons. Would you write the same sentence you wrote earlier but with 'difference' in stead of 'justification', so something like this "I do see the difference as a legal matter, but as a practical concern, mass-murder of non-combatants is no different by any argument." with regards to the holocaust and bombarding cities like Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

You'd make a great lawyer, Steve.

That is, if you're not one already.

As a native New Yorker I grew up among shysters - there are a few in my family, actually - so I know how they operate.

Nonsense.

Atrocities are atrocities, and when hundreds of thousands - maybe millions - of people are killed, the end result is the same regardless of motivation.

No, there is a difference. People who are held captive for the sole purpose of killing them are very different from people who are free to at least try to hide or flee.

Saying they are the same is nonsense.

Yeah really, the people of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were free to hide or flee.

Sorry you don't see the difference between purposefully trying to eradicate a whole group of the population and trying to win a war, by all means necessary.

I do see the difference as a legal matter, but as a practical concern, mass-murder of non-combatants can't be justified by any argument.

Atrocities were committed by all sides during WWII. Nobody is innocent.

The deliberate targeting of civilian populations in air raids was a hideous new development in warfare that was participated in with alacrity by Germany, the USA, and Britain.

The hunting down and prosecution of men in their 90s for alleged crimes committed over 70 years ago is justice in action as might well have been imagined by visionaries like Orwell or Kafka.

The situation is bizarre, and these cold-blooded acts of revenge will have a negative impact on the very people who are instigating them.

Don't compare war atrocities with the holocaust.

Seems my previous question has been answered.

Nonsense.

Atrocities are atrocities, and when hundreds of thousands - maybe millions - of people are killed, the end result is the same regardless of motivation.

No, there is a difference. People who are held captive for the sole purpose of killing them are very different from people who are free to at least try to hide or flee.

Saying they are the same is nonsense.

Yeah really, the people of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were free to hide or flee.

Atrocities were committed by all sides during WWII. Nobody is innocent.

The deliberate targeting of civilian populations in air raids was a hideous new development in warfare that was participated in with alacrity by Germany, the USA, and Britain.

The hunting down and prosecution of men in their 90s for alleged crimes committed over 70 years ago is justice in action as might well have been imagined by visionaries like Orwell or Kafka.

The situation is bizarre, and these cold-blooded acts of revenge will have a negative impact on the very people who are instigating them.

Don't compare war atrocities with the holocaust.

Seems my previous question has been answered.

Nonsense.

Atrocities are atrocities, and when hundreds of thousands - maybe millions - of people are killed, the end result is the same regardless of motivation.

No, there is a difference. People who are held captive for the sole purpose of killing them are very different from people who are free to at least try to hide or flee.

Saying they are the same is nonsense.

Sophistry and hair-splitting for people pushing an agenda.

It is the leaders and instigators that should be tried, not teenagers following orders under threat of death.

All the rest is propaganda of the most despicable kind.

This really turn things on his head. Boonchai Bencharongkul is highly critical of Thaksin policies and now in the same camp as Thaksin? Or the myth about the wat owe its allegiance to Thaksin is busted? So the Wat is not really Red. Lots of red faces ihere who keep harping on the wat pivot to Thaksin and the Red theory.

Interesting point... and relevant.

To what extent - if any - is Wat Dhammakaya a front for the Reds?

Thaksin has been silent on the issue, unless I've missed something.

Is he the ​eminence grise ​in this showdown, or is he really uninvolved?

No, it's never dull in Thailand, that's one of its charms.

Atrocities were committed by all sides during WWII. Nobody is innocent.

The deliberate targeting of civilian populations in air raids was a hideous new development in warfare that was participated in with alacrity by Germany, the USA, and Britain.

The hunting down and prosecution of men in their 90s for alleged crimes committed over 70 years ago is justice in action as might well have been imagined by visionaries like Orwell or Kafka.

The situation is bizarre, and these cold-blooded acts of revenge will have a negative impact on the very people who are instigating them.

Don't compare war atrocities with the holocaust.

Seems my previous question has been answered.

Nonsense.

Atrocities are atrocities, and when hundreds of thousands - maybe millions - of people are killed, the end result is the same regardless of motivation.

Atrocities were committed by all sides during WWII. Nobody is innocent.

The deliberate targeting of civilian populations in air raids was a hideous new development in warfare that was participated in with alacrity by Germany, the USA, and Britain.

The hunting down and prosecution of men in their 90s for alleged crimes committed over 70 years ago is justice in action as might well have been imagined by visionaries like Orwell or Kafka.

The situation is bizarre, and these cold-blooded acts of revenge will have a negative impact on the very people who are instigating them.

Israel sucks.

They go out of their way to cause trouble ,

and then when they get a little payback, they scream that they are being persecuted.

They are cocky and act tough as long as they know the U.S will finance and support them.

Israel has been an "independent" country for about 60 years now.

It is time they were truly independent and learned how to conduct themselves in a manor that does not put their existence in jeopardy with out a big brother to stick up for them.

Their attitude is a huge reason there can be no peace in the middle east, and that puts the safety of the entire world at risk.

They are the spoiled brats and bullies of the world and they need to grow up.

It's past time the USA let Israel either sink or swim on their own

A bunch of generalizations, nothing really on topic. Why am I not surprised?

Lame response.

You've gone from posts of mind-boggling verbosity to silly one-liners.

​You are not surprised because it is the obvious truth.

Israel sucks.

They go out of their way to cause trouble ,

and then when they get a little payback, they scream that they are being persecuted.

They are cocky and act tough as long as they know the U.S will finance and support them.

Israel has been an "independent" country for about 60 years now.

It is time they were truly independent and learned how to conduct themselves in a manor that does not put their existence in jeopardy with out a big brother to stick up for them.

Their attitude is a huge reason there can be no peace in the middle east, and that puts the safety of the entire world at risk.

They are the spoiled brats and bullies of the world and they need to grow up.

It's past time the USA let Israel either sink or swim on their own

​Hear! Hear!

​That needed to be said.

It is the obvious truth that is buried under a mountain of claptrap.

Israel has long rationed water to Palestinians. This is water pumped from wells and rivers inside Palestine. But Israel has seized control of all the water and doles it out one drop at a time.

From the very first, the policy of the Israeli government has been to make conditions of life intolerable for Palestinians so they will leave and make way for Israeli settlers.

It is all part of realizing the Zionist dream of ​Eretz Israel.

Some posters are having a hard times coming to terms with the fact that the water is divided according to a bilateral agreement signed by the Palestinians. The water is not pumped from "wells and rivers" (what rivers?) inside Palestine but from a variety of sources - some in the mountain aquifer (which will not be solely Palestinian anyway) and some originating from within Israel (as a measure to reduce over production and salinization of the mountain aquifer).

And there goes the nonsense trade mark line you bring up on every other post.

Your post is an attempt to whitewash an obvious fact... Israel is controlling water sources on Palestinian land and rationing them to Palestinians living on Israeli occupied territory.

​Eretz Israel ​is a "...nonsense trade mark..." ?

Tell that to a Zionist.